Friday, June 02, 2017

Trump said "Pittsburgh, not Paris" but we know he really meant to say, “Profits comes before Planet”.

The Paris agreement commits other countries to keeping global temperatures rises "well below" 2C (3.6F) and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C. Trump characterised the Paris agreement as a deal that aimed to hobble, disadvantage and impoverish the US. He claimed the agreement would cost the US $3tn in lost GDP and 6.5 million jobs. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement will make it more difficult for the world to reach the goals that it set for itself in the Paris agreement. The US contributes about 15% of global emissions of carbon, but it is also a significant source of finance and technology for developing countries in their efforts to fight rising temperatures. Calculations suggest withdrawal could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year – enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.

Peabody Energy, the largest coal mining firm in the US announced it “supports the administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Last year was the warmest since records began in the 19th century, as global average temperatures continued a rise dating back decades that leading climate scientists attribute to man-made greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere.

The Socialist Party praised the Paris agreement but we placed little trust or reliance that the governments of the world would halt or slow down much less reverse climate change. But we also pointed out the realities. Attempts to tackle climate change in the context of a world market economy will, at best, achieve only limited results. The main obstacle to reducing global warming is capitalism, where production is geared to profit, and production costs have to be kept to a minimum. Measures to curb emissions may increase the latter and place firms at a competitive disadvantage. Also, in many cases, it is more cost effective to import materials from abroad, which requires the burning of fossil fuel in transporting them. Nation states and trading blocs also seek to compete with each other on the best possible terms, and in some cases endeavour to protect their profitable extractive industries. In socialism, where production can be rationally organised according to human need, we'll have the best chance of successfully curtailing global warming.